You're welcome. I enjoyed it.

He may well be, but that overemphasis on individualism is is rampant in neoliberal and conservative circles, it's most amusing version being the sovereign citizen. — Banno

The example given here: "Thus, morality is the self-generated body of behaviors designed for individual achievement of well-being and happiness." is a Randian expression of what people really talk about when they talk about morality. Many Libertarians, like Hayek for example, argue against institutional controls of exchange without making such a claim or writing an epistemology to explain their view of what constitutes tyranny.

What I have read of the "sovereign individual" book on systems is that it seems to be 'amoral' to the extent that self-interest is taken as a presupposition and there is no need to compare that with any telos of how the world of people should be.

Morality encompassess the behaviors I engage in privately, as I have the power to impact my life in ways both beneficial and deleterious, and because I am confined to my body and am its sole proprietor with sole responsibility over my well-being — Garrett Travers

It strikes me as a bit odd to refer to my self-care in terms of ‘morality’ unless that term is being used so broadly as to take it out of the realm of ethics as it is conventionally understood. Self-care is generally associated with ethics to the extent that cari h for oneself enhances one’s ability to care for others.

No, not true. The idea that gave rise to the concept of ethics came from Socrates, which was to understand how to live the "good life," as he called it. The concept that you aren't capable of developing a personal, ethical code by which to live, in the hopes of increasing utility in your own life, promoting personal health, succeeding at individual goals, finding a compatiible partner, pursuing truth, and so on, is a concept entirely foreign to philosophy. Ethics is quite literally the branch of philosophy that seeks develop systems by which individuals should live, being informed both by personal reasons and interpersonal reasons. Among those reasons, ideas such as self-flourishing and individual well-being have never been divorced from ethics in any significant, or historical capacity. I have no idea where some of you are getting these ideas. And I mean that, I'm intending in no way to be insulting. I have no idea where this idea of ethics comes from and I've now seen three of you repeat very similar things.

ideas such as self-flourishing and individual well-being have never been divorced from ethics in any significant, or historical capacity. I — Garrett Travers

I have in mind contemporary philosophical discussion of ethics. My point is not that self-care is divorced from interpersonal ethics for modern thinkers , but that they are tied together in a dependent relationship, with the ethical aspect of self-care being for the sake of interpersonal ethics. Those philosophers for whom this is not the case, that is, for whom self-care is not subordinate to the interpersonal, tend to reject ethics as unjustifiable ( Heidegger, Nietzsche)

Those philosophers for whom this is not the case, that is, for whom self-care is not subordinate to the interpersonal, tend to reject ethics as unjustifiable ( Heidegger, Nietzsche) — Joshs

No, that is also not the case. Jeremy Bentham and Mills divised an ethical framework to cover both individual and interpersonal ethics (Utilitarianism). The Stoic ethical framework is almost exclusively predicated upon individual behavior. The Objectivist framework, being the most comprehensive ethical framework to date - with perhaps the exception of Kantian ethics, is predicated almost exclusively on individual flourishing and well-being. The Kantian perspective even makes room for individual ethics in the form of the hypothetical imperative. I could go on. Again, I have no idea how you guys are generating this stuff. This is completely ahistorical. Would you mind elucidating me on the source of these kinds of claims? It sounds very, very Christian to me. I suspect that particular gravity well maybe a primary culprit here. Not sure, though, yet.

The idea that gave rise to the concept of ethics came from Socrates, which was to understand how to live the "good life," as he called it. The concept that you aren't capable of developing a personal, ethical code by which to live, in the hopes of increasing utility in your own life, promoting personal health, succeeding at individual goals, finding a compatible partner, pursuing truth, and so on, is a concept entirely foreign to philosophy. — Garrett Travers

The principle of responsibilities to others was constantly set on the balance whereby the good of the individual was conditioned by the needs of the community.

“What needs to be considered, then, is whether we’re instituting the guardians with a view to that, in order for the greatest possible happiness to be brought about in them, or else, with a view toward this for the whole city, it needs to be seen whether it’s being brought about there. In the latter case, these auxiliaries and guardians would need to be compelled and persuaded to see to that, so that they’ll be the best craftsmen at their own work and all the others will be the same, and once the city is growing all together in that way and is beautifully established, one needs to leave it up to nature to allow each class of people to partake of happiness. — Plato, The Republic, 421b, translated by Joe Sachs

Jeremy Bentham and Mills divised an ethical framework to cover both individual and interpersonal ethics (Utilitarianism). — Garrett Travers

That’s right: Right actions are those that are likely to result in the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
What makes individual pursuit of pleasure ‘right’ is that it also benefits the totality.

The Stoic ethical framework is almost exclusively predicated upon individual behavior. — Garrett Travers

Yes, but my focus is on modern ethics.

The Objectivist framework, being the most comprehensive ethical framework to date - with perhaps the exception of Kantian ethics, is predicated almost exclusively on individual flourishing and well-being. — Garrett Travers

Objectivism, unlike utilitarianism, is agent-focused. But both view individual satisfaction of desire in relation to the collective. The ethicality of self-interest is defined by its comparison with. the interest of the whole. The self makes no sense except against the background of a community of selves and their values systems . So the ‘ought’ of ethics, whether it be centered around individual desire or the group, is an achievement of culture and operates in the context of specific material practices and social relations.

That’s right: Right actions are those that are likely to result in the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
What makes individual pursuit of pleasure ‘right’ is that it also benefits the totality. — Joshs

No, what makes it right from the utilitarian perspective is that it increases utility. It isn't one dimensional as you put. The more the better, but at base value it is a metric that is applicable at the individual level.

Yes, but my focus is on modern ethics. — Joshs

Okay, what particular ethical model are you talking about?

The ethicality of self-interest is defined by its comparison with the interest of the whole. The self makes no sense except against the background of a community of selves and their values systems . So the ‘ought’ of ethics, whether it be centered around individual desire or the group, is an achievement of culture and operates in the context of specific material practices and social relations. — Joshs

The ethicality of self-interest is defined by the maximization of the self, as standardized by the self within the Objectivist framework, not by comparison with the whole. The self is the only thing that can make sense, as the whole you keep referring to is comprised of self's, there is no whole without its constituent elements, that's you as an individual and I. Regardless of whether or not any practice is an achievement of culture, it is only individuals that can enact codes of ethics, the whole cannot do so, because the whole does not have brain or cpu, only indiviudals do. My whole point here was that relegating ethics exclusively to interpersonal relations is both binary and demonstrably inaccurate across ethical frameworks. Ethics is the domain of both arenas, public and private.

I regret to inform you that these passages here are discussing two things specifically that have nothing to do with ethics: One being the Just City, which is a political concept. Two being the "Gaurdians," the military force within proposed Just City, for whom Glaucon, Socrates, Thrasymachus, and Polemarchus divise unique modes of living apart from normal culture, no doubt modeling their ideas on Spartan infantry methods, that have nothing to do with ethics, or what Socrates is remembered for as far as seeking the answers to how to live "the good life."

That being said, it is not I that is saying that ethics is exclusively the domain of the individual, it is the people arguing with me that are claiming that ethics/morality is exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations. I am saying that ethics begins with the individual and extends outward into society to encompass both him/herself, as well as others.

The passage does address the ethical issue of why the guardians should give up some portion of their pursuit of individual happiness for the greater good. Socrates says that they would not see it as a sacrifice if viewed as artists working with what is theirs to work upon. The happiness that comes from that devotion is a personal benefit as well as a communal one.

Two being the "Guardians," the military force within proposed Just City, for whom Glaucon, Socrates, Thrasymachus, and Polemarchus devise unique modes of living apart from normal culture, — Garrett Travers

I understand that Plato is writing of a 'City of Words', but Thrasymachus was not proposing an alternate form of life as something apart from "normal culture." His shtick was that talk of Justice is a way to sugarcoat the reality of power, where the people who win call the shots and the talk about right as a common good is a story to make people feel better about it.

The passage does address the ethical issue of why the guardians should give up some portion of their pursuit of individual happiness for the greater good. Socrates says that they would not see it as a sacrifice if viewed as artists working with what is theirs to work upon. The happiness that comes from that devotion is a personal benefit as well as a communal one. — Paine

I get that it addresses what Socrates and the rest wanted to force the members of the Just City to do, but the Just City is itself secondary to Plato's Person, the ethics of which are defined by the triunal body of: wisdom to reason, courage to spirit, and temperance to appetite. All of which are first and foremost individual pursuits that, if achieved, will naturally produce harmony between people. So, it doesn't matter if you use Socrates, Plato, or the vast majority of all ethical philosophers as examples, it is clear that the idea that ethics is exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations is ahistorical and demostrably false and this passage from The Republic above has nothing to do with Platonic or Socratic ethical theory on its own, but only in relation to the proposition of the Just City.

I understand that Plato is writing of 'City of Words', but Thrasymachus was not proposing an alternate form of life as something apart from "normal culture." His shtick was that talk of Justice is a way to sugarcoat the reality of power, where the people who win call the shots and the talk about right as a common good is a story to make people feel better about it. — Paine

I'm quite aware. I merely placed they're names together because they were the one's having the conversation. That still doesn't address any point of mine.

Doesn't giving our life meaning also self serving?

Do we have any ethical obligations to our future selves?

ethics is exclusively the domain of interpersonal relations is ahistorical and demostrably false and this passage from The Republic above has nothing to do with Platonic or Socratic ethical theory on its own, but only in relation to the proposition of the Just City. — Garrett Travers

Nothing to do with it?
Ethics has nothing to do with just polity?
I am getting an ice cream headache.

Regardless of whether or not any practice is an achievement of culture, it is only individuals that can enact codes of ethics, the whole cannot do so, because the whole does not have brain or cpu, only indiviudals do. — Garrett Travers

The values of the individual are organized and shaped via interaction with a larger culture, so the individual is already operating within that larger framework in enacting an ethical code, whether they realize it or not. That was Nietzsche’s argument against utilitarianism.

Regardless
My whole point here was that relegating ethics exclusively to interpersonal relations is both binary and demonstrably inaccurate across ethical frameworks. Ethics is the domain of both arenas, public and private. — Garrett Travers

Except you can’t disentangle the private from the public, even if you are Ayn Rand. Btw, do you find her work valuable to your ethical approach?

Ethics has nothing to do with just polity? — Paine

I'm going to need you to read with a bit more attention to detail. I reiterate: this passage from The Republic above has nothing to do with Platonic or Socratic ethical theory on its own, but only in realtion to the proposed Just City.

I will also reiterate another argument of mine you missed: Ethics is quite literally the branch of philosophy that seeks to develop systems by which individuals should live, being informed both by personal reasons and interpersonal reasons.

Meaning, I in no way implied that ethics has NOTHING to do with just polity. You misunderstood me entirely.

The values of the individual are organized and shaped via interaction with a larger culture, so the individual is already operating within that larger framework in enacting an ethical code. That was Nietzsche’s argument against utilitarianism. — Joshs

This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how values are shaped or within what culture an individual lives. Each individual chooses to direct their own behavior as they enact it. It isn't possible for others to act for you. Meaning, ethics is an individual practice because ethics implies an established body of behaviors, or actions. Your actions and standards can be informed by others, but only you can enact them. This is clear, as only you have control over your body. Ethics emerges first from the individual, then to those surrounding the individual. Again, the whole is comprised of thinking/acting agents (humans), the whole doesn't produce thinking/acting agents, anymore than society produces humans, as opposed to individual mothers.

Except you can’t disentangle the private from the public — Joshs

Yes, I most certainly can. My body is private, as in exclusively mine. My house is private, as in exclusively mine. My art, my theories, my values, my interests, all exclusively mine. Private is that which no access is granted to without the consent of the owner. This includes my labor. My labor is mine exclusively, not yours, or society's. The problem isn't that I can't disentangle them, the problem is that you can't disentangle them.

Ayn Rand. Btw, do you find her work valuable to your ethical approach? — Joshs

Considering that Rand's ethical epistemology is the single most comprehensive and sophisticated epistemology generated since Immanuel Kant, I would say her work is invaluable to my ethical framework, just like Kant's, Hume's, Mill's, Locke's, and all others. However, I'd say hers is far more sophisticated than Hume's and Locke's, and every bit as groundbreaking Kant's and Mill's.

You will have to show me where Plato decouples ethics and politics in the manner you propose.

The passage I cited supports the idea that people should live: "being informed both by personal reasons and interpersonal reasons." Noticing that these interests conflict in life is central to what ethical considerations must deal with by actual humans.

The idea that gave rise to the concept of ethics came from Socrates... — Garrett Travers

Ah, the Geeks.

It seems worthwhile at this point to make reference to my thread on Idiot Greeks.

The values of the individual are organized and shaped via interaction with a larger culture, so the individual is already operating within that larger framework in enacting an ethical code. That was Nietzsche’s argument against utilitarianism.
— Joshs

This is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter how values are shaped or within what culture an individual lives. Each individual chooses to direct their own behavior as they enact it. It isn't possible for others to act for you. — Garrett Travers

Everything you think is shaped by your wider culture , even as your own ideas represent a variation on that larger thematics. Your choices and freedom
are constrained by that larger frame. In order to grasp that you would have to know how to read Kant, James, Hegel , Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche and many others.

Considering that Rand's ethical epistemology is the single most comprehensive and sophisticated epistemology generated since Immanuel Kant, I would say her work is invaluable to my ethical framework, just like Kant's, Hume's, Mill's, Locke's, and all others. However, I'd say hers is far more sophisticated than Hume's and Locke's, and every bit as groundbreaking Kant's and Mill's. — Garrett Travers

No, I’d say Rand failed miserably to understand Kant, and instead represents a bastardized version of 18th century pre-Kantianism.

Yes, I most certainly can. My body is private, as in exclusively mine. My house is private, as in exclusively mine. My art, my theories, my values, my interests, all exclusively mine. Private is that which no access is granted to without the consent of the owner. — Garrett Travers

Your body and house are private only in so far as you obey the laws of whatever society you're in. If you violate those laws, or if you simply give the state good reason to think you've violated them, your body and possessions are no longer exclusively yours to do with as you see fit. We can never completely disentangle from society, unless we're off in the woods somewhere, and even then, you can be subject to eminent domain.

I'm not just nitpicking. In a society, we all agree that our privacy and property rights aren't absolute. We can lose those rights pretty easily if the other members of our society suspect we're up to no good. I think that's what the other poster was talking about with his comment about entanglement.

You will have to show me where Plato decouples ethics and politics in the manner you propose. — Paine

It's quite literally the basis of his ethics, expounded upon across multiple works. He doesn't decouple them, it's that the political aspect of ethics is entirely secondary to individual happiness and flourishing through knowledge, as he regarded ignorance is the greatest evil. Here's some material on it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/

Mind you, that almost all ethical theories start from the premise that ethics is an individual pursuit meant to produce the greatest happiness for said individual first and foremost. I seriously don't know where everybody is coming up with the opposite, it's ahistorical completely.

The passage I cited supports the idea that people should live: "being informed both by personal reasons and interpersonal reasons." Noticing that these interests conflict in life is central to what ethical considerations must deal with by actual humans. — Paine

Yes, and I, being very careful about how I approach things and always making sure that I am doing so from as many angles as possible, have never disagreed with the idea that noticing these interests conflict is central to ethics. I am arguing against the notion that ethics is exclusively predicated on such considerations and that individual ethics are not a thing. Which is what just about everyone here has been arguing for, for some truly bizarre reason of which I still have no clarity on.

Your body and house are private only in so far as you obey the laws of whatever society you're in. If you violate those laws, or if you simply give the state good reason to think you've violated them, your body and possessions are no longer exclusively yours to do with as you see fit. — RogueAI

The fact that there are forces in the world that can implement overwhelming force over me to steal my house and enslave my body, does not negate the fact that they are mine and not everyone else's. This kind of argument has no place in an ethical discussion. We aren't discussing the violation of an individuals rights. We're talking about the difference between public and private and how the two concepts can be disentangled. Not what justifies, or what can be used to revoke property from people and enslave them. I genuinely have no clue why you even said this.

Everything you think is shaped by your wider culture , even as your own ideas represent a variation on that larger thematics. Your choices and freedom
are constrained by that larger frame. In order to grasp that you would have to know how to read Kant, James, Hegel , Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche and many others. — Joshs

No, I understand it, it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what has shaped my values. What matters is what I choose to do. My actions are solely the result of me having initiated them. I don't care how much culture has influenced my thought, I choose what I choose based upon the values I've chosen to adopt as the result of the application of my own reason.

No, I’d say Rand failed miserably to understand Kant — Joshs

Understanding Kant is useless because his conclusions are predicated upon too many false premises. However, one can glean the gist of what he is attempting to make the case for, but failing to do so in the most sophisticated way imaginable. The only useful concept he ever generated was the hypothetical imperative.

instead represents a bastardized version of 18th century pre-Kantianism. — Joshs

Oh, yeah? In what manner?

The fact that there are forces in the world that can implement overwhelming force over me to steal my house and enslave my body, does not negate the fact that they are mine and not everyone else's. This kind of argument has no place in an ethical discussion. We aren't discussing the violation of an individuals rights. We're talking about the difference between public and private and how the two concepts can be disentangled. Not what justifies, or what can be used to revoke property from people and enslave them. I genuinely have no clue why you even said this. — Garrett Travers

Because there is a tension between your bodily/property rights and society's right to govern itself. You belong to a society, and you presumably (are you an anarchist?) agree that society has a right to imprison you and take your stuff if conditions warrant it. You do not have an exclusive right to your body and possessions. You've agreed that you will voluntarily give up those rights (again, assuming you don't shoot it out with the cops if the police ever do show up with a warrant) if society has a good enough reason. I also assume you won't fight to the death to defend your house against eminent domain.

Also, you're kind of a jerk.

Also, you're kind of a jerk. — RogueAI

May have something to do with his being an Ayn Rand devotee. Often those two go together.

Because there is a tension between your bodily/property rights and society's right to govern itself. — RogueAI

Societies are inanimate concepts, they do not govern themselves. The country I live in was predicated upon the right of the people to not only govern themselves in pursuit of their own interests, but to be at the helm of a government that would accomodate the freedom of the individual constituents to govern themselves.

You belong to a society, and you presumably (are you an anarchist?) agree that society has a right to imprison you and take your stuff if conditions warrant it. — RogueAI

I do not belong to a society, I belong to myself. I live in a society. No, I don't agree that society has a right to imprison me, unless I am a clear and present danger to other individuals with sovereign boundries.

You do not have an exclusive right to your body and possessions. — RogueAI

Yes, I do. You're not me. I tell you about my body, not you tell me. That's how slavers think.

I also assume you won't fight to the death to defend your house against eminent domain. — RogueAI

To the death, maybe, depends on the situation. Eminent Domain is an abomination of government and a violation of individual sovereignty, I will expect an inordinate sum of cash.

Also, you're kind of a jerk. — RogueAI

Because I pointed out that it didn't make sense for you to interject with a completely irrelevant point about the ability to simply steal my property if you want? I think you've confused our roles.

Is this supposed to be an argument? Some people thought something was idiotic? Well, I think that people who predicate their ethics on benefiting others are buffoons. See how that works?

I love this quote:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

And also Roger Ebert reviewing Atlas Shrugged:
"For me, that philosophy reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."